| Revision as of 15:55, 19 March 2010 editMeletian (talk | contribs)20 edits You're living in the past, son.← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:34, 19 March 2010 edit undoJc3s5h (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers32,912 edits Undo block evasionNext edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| ...In 1999, an Egyptian papyrus was published that gives an ephemeris table for 24BC with both Roman and Egyptian dates. The Roman dates are not aligned with any of these solutions - they are aligned with the Julian calendar as it would have been if it had been operated corrrectly.(note 8). One suggested resolution of the problem is that the triennial cycle never found favour in Egypt. | ...In 1999, an Egyptian papyrus was published that gives an ephemeris table for 24BC with both Roman and Egyptian dates. The Roman dates are not aligned with any of these solutions - they are aligned with the Julian calendar as it would have been if it had been operated corrrectly.(note 8). One suggested resolution of the problem is that the triennial cycle never found favour in Egypt. | ||
| I don't follow Dr Bennett's reasoning on the fifth triennial cycle. If you apply it to my table ], by 24BC 1 Thoth (wandering) is falling on August 27, but on the true Julian calendar it is falling on August 29 (the same day as in the fixed Alexandrian calendar). ] (]) 16:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC) | I don't follow Dr Bennett's reasoning on the fifth triennial cycle. If you apply it to my table ], by 24BC 1 Thoth (wandering) is falling on August 27, but on the true Julian calendar it is falling on August 29 (the same day as in the fixed Alexandrian calendar). ] (]) 16:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :Thank you for confirming beyond doubt that you are our hydra-headed IP friend the Intercalary Fool engaged in yet another strategy for block evasion. Since WP does encourage blocked IP users to take a User ID (something I tried to get you to do 2 years ago), you get one free pass. And only one. | :Thank you for confirming beyond doubt that you are our hydra-headed IP friend the Intercalary Fool engaged in yet another strategy for block evasion. Since WP does encourage blocked IP users to take a User ID (something I tried to get you to do 2 years ago), you get one free pass. And only one. | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| :Re your first point: It hardly matters whether any of the scholars I listed are dead or alive (though FYI some are very much alive -- and if that's your standard Ideler, de Sanctis and even Bickerman have been deader for far longer). The fact is that Michels' reconstruction '''is''' the standard view of modern scholarship, and the cited work of these scholars is irrefutable evidence of it. The reasons for this have been repeatedly explained to you over two years. Further, you have been repeatedly challenged (a) to read Michels' book and (b) to provide any evidence at all of widely accepted refutations of her reconstruction (or indeed '''any''' published refutation by a reputable scholar), and you have repeatedly ignored this. Without such evidence, there is no reason at all even to consider your suggested edit, which anyway does not belong in this article. | :Re your first point: It hardly matters whether any of the scholars I listed are dead or alive (though FYI some are very much alive -- and if that's your standard Ideler, de Sanctis and even Bickerman have been deader for far longer). The fact is that Michels' reconstruction '''is''' the standard view of modern scholarship, and the cited work of these scholars is irrefutable evidence of it. The reasons for this have been repeatedly explained to you over two years. Further, you have been repeatedly challenged (a) to read Michels' book and (b) to provide any evidence at all of widely accepted refutations of her reconstruction (or indeed '''any''' published refutation by a reputable scholar), and you have repeatedly ignored this. Without such evidence, there is no reason at all even to consider your suggested edit, which anyway does not belong in this article. | ||
| :Re your second point: you are now arguing about whether the observation of a match to the proleptic Julian calendar belongs in the body of the text or a footnote. Since the subject of the section is the triennial cycle, the main point is to explain why an alternate triennial cycle was suggested, so this text clearly belongs in a footnote. If you really need it to be in the main text, please provide a justification for placing it there which amounts to something other than you don't think my reconstruction can be right, apparently because you don't like me. |
:Re your second point: you are now arguing about whether the observation of a match to the proleptic Julian calendar belongs in the body of the text or a footnote. Since the subject of the section is the triennial cycle, the main point is to explain why an alternate triennial cycle was suggested, so this text clearly belongs in a footnote. If you really need it to be in the main text, please provide a justification for placing it there which amounts to something other than you don't think my reconstruction can be right, apparently because you don't like me. | ||
| Why should I dislike Dr Bennett? I've never met him. ](]) 22:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Your other suggestion here, that the triennial cycle "never" found favour in Egypt, is entirely your own speculation. Jones' proposal to explain the Egyptian data is that the correct Julian calendar was in place in 24 B.C. but had been replaced by the Roman calendar sometime before 2 B.C. | :Your other suggestion here, that the triennial cycle "never" found favour in Egypt, is entirely your own speculation. Jones' proposal to explain the Egyptian data is that the correct Julian calendar was in place in 24 B.C. but had been replaced by the Roman calendar sometime before 2 B.C. | ||
| Line 35: | Line 33: | ||
| :As to how my triennial cycle works please see the Excel spreadsheet on my site at (HTML version at ). | :As to how my triennial cycle works please see the Excel spreadsheet on my site at (HTML version at ). | ||
| :As I said, this is your one free pass as far as I am concerned. If you start engaging in serious discussion we can discuss. If you carry on as you have done, and as I fully expect you to do, I will be reverting you in both the article and this talk page for block evasion, and I trust others will too. --](]) 19:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC) | :As I said, this is your one free pass as far as I am concerned. If you start engaging in serious discussion we can discuss. If you carry on as you have done, and as I fully expect you to do, I will be reverting you in both the article and this talk page for block evasion, and I trust others will too. --] (]) 19:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
| At last, I've finally found a public library terminal that isn't blocked. These schoolkids are a real pain. At least I don't vandalise the place - if editing isn't disabled and I see vandalism I always remove it. Dr Bennett says "You may think we are all out to get you." It's a lovely warm spring morning out in the country - everything is peaceful. Let's see if we can keep it that way. | |||
| Dr Bennett has been rolling back my edits from this discussion board on the ground that I am a banned user. As I have said many times, whoever suggested that he was libelling him or her is not myself. Assuming for the purposes of the argument that I am a banned user, does it matter? WP policy is that it's OK to remove other contributors' posts from one's own talk page but this is not Dr Bennett's talk page so I'm adding the content back. | |||
| This is unbelievable. Dr Bennett has no idea how to put a case together. If he can call on living witnesses whom he thinks support him he needs to name and cite them. If he doesn't I can put my changes in. | |||
| I have finished reading ''The Suspicions of Mr Whicher''. The word ''monomania'' appears on pp 216, 287 and 323 (three times). On page 288 it is described as "the nervous fancies of a hypochondriacal bachelor". I don't see myself there at all. "Monomaniacal" appears on page 256 and "monomaniac" on pp 287 and 288. | |||
| Dr Bennett is talking about modern scholars having a consensus. By definition these must be living people - the dead can't come to a consensus about anything, so far as I know. And only living people will be in possession of all the latest research when they come to make up their minds. | |||
| I gave Dr Bennett the name of one living author who refutes the Michels model - then there are all the learned contributors at ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' and ''Whitaker's Almanac''. I don't know why he thinks early sources are unreliable (apart from the obvious reason that they don't agree with him). People like Varro, Censorinus and Macrobius were there at the time. He can't refute what these people say so he simply ignores them. As to his second point, I couldn't care less whether my changes go in text or footnote. Note the paranoia Dr Bennett displays at the end of his paragraph. | |||
| I used my detective skills to track down Dr Bennett's website (he doesn't know the URL of his own site). What came up was gobbledygook. Is he incapable of presenting his argument in such a way that the ordinary mortals who refer to WP can understand it? Can he explain in words of one syllable why Professor Jones' research supports the hypothesis of a fifth triennial cycle? | |||
| After the Tyndale website it was such a relief to re - read Professor Jones' paper. On page 160 he says there are two papyri which prove that the triennial cycle was not used in Egypt before 2BC. And we know there was a "catch - up" period when the Roman calendar was being put right after 9BC. | |||
| Joe describes how medieval copyists extended the final letter in a Roman numeral as a safeguard against tampering. Thus xxvii would in fact be written xxvij. On Celsus, does Dr Bennett claim that Celsus wrote xxvii without this safeguard and someone came along and changed it to xxviii? If so, who does he think that someone was, and when was it done? ] (]) 12:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| There is an inscription which says that in Asia in an unspecified year the last day of the old lunar calendar was 14 Peritios = a.d. X Kal. Feb. (23 January). The following day, from which the calendar would remain aligned to the Roman calendar, was 1 Dystros, a.d. IX Kal. Feb. (24 January). Thereafter, the Asian month would begin on a.d. IX Kal. of the Roman month. The old calendar being lunar, the problem comes down to seeing when 23 January equates to a full moon. | |||
| My table shows two likely candidates - 8BC and 5BC. | |||
| {|class="wikitable" | |||
| !Year BC (*=regular leap year)||Julian||colspan=2|Irregular Julian (*=leap year) | |||
| |- | |||
| |10||January 19||January 16||January 16 | |||
| |- | |||
| |9*||January 8||January 6||January 5* | |||
| |- | |||
| |8||January 27||January 25||January 24 | |||
| |- | |||
| |7||January 16||January 14||January 13 | |||
| |- | |||
| |6||January 5||January 3||January 2 | |||
| |- | |||
| |5*||January 24||January 22||January 21 | |||
| |- | |||
| |4||January 13||January 12||January 11 | |||
| |- | |||
| |3||February 1||January 31||January 30 | |||
| |- | |||
| |2||January 21||January 20||January 19 | |||
| |- | |||
| |1*||January 10||January 9||January 8 | |||
| |} | |||
| There was an eclipse on March 23, 5BC (Julian date). There was thus also a full moon on January 24, 5BC (Julian date). I have not investigated the arrangement of intercalary years in the ancient Greek calendar. | |||
| The inscription mentions an intercalation. It is unlikely that the irregular Julian calendar was being introduced (in 8BC) because it was no longer intercalated at that time, and the purpose of the reform (as in Egypt and Rome) was to introduce the correct Julian calendar. The likely date is therefore 5BC, with the regular Julian intercalation coming a few weeks after adoption. | |||
| There is clear indication that, having moved to correct the calendar in Rome in 9BC, Augustus turned his attention to Asia. He would have been well aware of the situation in Egypt, and the fact that he felt no need to take any action there indicates that no action was needed. Professor Jones says: | |||
| :The Egyptians must at some point have become aware that the Roman dates that they assigned to particular days differed by one or two days from the dates according to the pontifices, but we should not assume that they would have immediately changed the reckoning to conform with the official version of the calendar. The calendar equation Roman July 19 = Egyptian Epeiph 27 discussed by Hagedorn indicates that conformity was imposed by 2BC. | |||
| This date equation puts the wandering year out of the picture, but to conclude that that indicates that the Egyptians had been forced to abandon the fixed relationship with the Alexandrian calendar seems to me misguided. From 9BC the pressure was all the other way. | |||
| ==New calendar (Eastern churches)== | ==New calendar (Eastern churches)== | ||
| There is still time to vote on the proposed change of name for this article. Please cast your ballot at ]. ] (]) 16:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC) | There is still time to vote on the proposed change of name for this article. Please cast your ballot at ]. ] (]) 16:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
| '''Since I called the ballot, I have found that the new calendar already has a name - the Meletian calendar. I'm changing my vote to support that as the new name. Apologies for the confusion - I'm extending the voting period to 30 April, 2010'''. Read the background information before making up your mind. World Council of Churches: Frequently asked questions about the date of Easter (31 January 2007), available at . There is a mistake in this document - there is a common Easter date many times between 2017 and 2034. | |||
| Regarding Dr Bennett's denigration of the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' ], the following email may be of interest: . | |||
| Don't take any notice of Cassidy's diatribe - "once bitten, twice shy" - they got into trouble for printing Sacrobosco's October story, so they were unlikely to make the same mistake repeating Agnes Michels' ''mensis intercalaris'' story. | |||
| Newcomb's value for the mean interval between vernal equinoxes is spot on. A mean interval corrects for '''all''' periodic disturbances. A calendar which tracks the observed vernal equinox is a non - starter because it creates unacceptable jitter in the other cardinal points - the summer solstice, autumnal equinox and winter solstice. As Kepler said: "Easter is a feast, not a planet". According to Cassidy, the Meletian calendar is less accurate than the Gregorian. It is in fact more than thirteen times '''more''' accurate. ] (]) 10:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:34, 19 March 2010
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 Archives |
Celsus and the Triennial Cycles: A Proposal
And a happy Mother's Day (it's different over here). I thought the indent rule was that each contributor's posts were aligned, so that on this thread Dr Bennett would be justified left, I would be on first tab and Gerry on second. If I am wrong no doubt Joe will put things right.
I take it from the last post that none of the people Dr Bennett wants to call as witnesses is alive. I therefore suggest the following wordings:
Motivation
The ordinary year in the previous Roman calendar consisted of twelve months, for a total of 355 days. In addition, a 27 or 28 - day intercalary month, the mensis intercalaris, was sometimes inserted immediately after February 23, the last five days of February (a.d. VI Kal. Mart. to Prid. Kal. Mart.) becoming the last five days of the mensis intercalaris with the same names. The start of the mensis intercalaris was delayed by one day in 170BC to prevent certain festivals of March (then the first month of the year) falling on a market day. An alternative model, proposed by Mrs Agnes Kirsopp Michels in 1967, is not now regarded as viable. The decision to insert the intercalary month, etc.
Leap year error
...In 1999, an Egyptian papyrus was published that gives an ephemeris table for 24BC with both Roman and Egyptian dates. The Roman dates are not aligned with any of these solutions - they are aligned with the Julian calendar as it would have been if it had been operated corrrectly.(note 8). One suggested resolution of the problem is that the triennial cycle never found favour in Egypt.
I don't follow Dr Bennett's reasoning on the fifth triennial cycle. If you apply it to my table Talk:Julian calendar/Archive 2#Celsus and the Triennial cycles:A Proposal, by 24BC 1 Thoth (wandering) is falling on August 27, but on the true Julian calendar it is falling on August 29 (the same day as in the fixed Alexandrian calendar). Vote (X) for Change (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for confirming beyond doubt that you are our hydra-headed IP friend the Intercalary Fool engaged in yet another strategy for block evasion. Since WP does encourage blocked IP users to take a User ID (something I tried to get you to do 2 years ago), you get one free pass. And only one.
- Re your first point: It hardly matters whether any of the scholars I listed are dead or alive (though FYI some are very much alive -- and if that's your standard Ideler, de Sanctis and even Bickerman have been deader for far longer). The fact is that Michels' reconstruction is the standard view of modern scholarship, and the cited work of these scholars is irrefutable evidence of it. The reasons for this have been repeatedly explained to you over two years. Further, you have been repeatedly challenged (a) to read Michels' book and (b) to provide any evidence at all of widely accepted refutations of her reconstruction (or indeed any published refutation by a reputable scholar), and you have repeatedly ignored this. Without such evidence, there is no reason at all even to consider your suggested edit, which anyway does not belong in this article.
- Re your second point: you are now arguing about whether the observation of a match to the proleptic Julian calendar belongs in the body of the text or a footnote. Since the subject of the section is the triennial cycle, the main point is to explain why an alternate triennial cycle was suggested, so this text clearly belongs in a footnote. If you really need it to be in the main text, please provide a justification for placing it there which amounts to something other than you don't think my reconstruction can be right, apparently because you don't like me.
- Your other suggestion here, that the triennial cycle "never" found favour in Egypt, is entirely your own speculation. Jones' proposal to explain the Egyptian data is that the correct Julian calendar was in place in 24 B.C. but had been replaced by the Roman calendar sometime before 2 B.C.
- As to how my triennial cycle works please see the Excel spreadsheet on my site at (HTML version at ).
- As I said, this is your one free pass as far as I am concerned. If you start engaging in serious discussion we can discuss. If you carry on as you have done, and as I fully expect you to do, I will be reverting you in both the article and this talk page for block evasion, and I trust others will too. --Chris Bennett (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
New calendar (Eastern churches)
There is still time to vote on the proposed change of name for this article. Please cast your ballot at Talk:Revised Julian calendar#Proposal to change article name. Vote (X) for Change (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Categories: